In 1998, one year after stepping down as Hong Kong governor, Chris Patten published East and West, a chronicle of his experiences in the former British colony. In chapter 2 Patten gives the following description: "... One after another, Chinese officials would accuse me of having broken the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law. `How have I done so?' I would respond ....`Well,' they would usually claim somewhat lamely, `you have at least broken the spirit of the Joint Declaration and the Basic Law.' `What do you mean by the spirit? Do you just mean that you disagree with me? Why not then discuss what I have done? Put forward your own proposals.' `We cannot put forward our own proposals until you return to the spirit of the text.' The circles spun and looped; the arguments twisted and turned; the greased pig wriggled about the room; defying capture."
Reading the book is a sobering experience, even four and half years after the handover. One can give a highly accurate description of the cross-strait situation by simply substituting "Joint Declaration and Basic Law" with "1992 consensus" -- the purported agreement that continues to stir up controversy across the Taiwan Strait. The Chinese Communist Party uses the same negotiation tactics against Taiwan, as it did with the British. One has to wonder whether the controversy over whether there was ever a "1992 consensus" is simply part of Beijing's propaganda and psychological warfare -- and a complete waste of time.
If the Chen Shui-bian (
The dispute is simply aimed at misleading the Taiwanese and the international community. Nevertheless, we hear some in the international community, who know little about the "1992 consensus" and yet are too willing to spout off about it.
Recently, a senior US official in Washington DC told a reporter from Taiwan: "Of course, the two sides had a `most basic consensus' before they held the Koo-Wang talks." The remarks came at a sensitive time in Taiwan's election campaign. The pro-unification media in Taiwan magnified the significance of these remarks by giving them extensive coverage. Beneath the headlines, however, one was hard put to find any clue as to the meaning of the so-called consensus. The official did not explain, but the damage was already done.
The motive of Taiwan's pro-unification media was clear: they wanted to use Uncle Sam's words to teach the Chen government a lesson. At the same time, many of Beijing's stooges who are candidates in the elections are using the US official's remarks to attack their rivals.
In fact, we know from the statements of former president Lee Teng-hui (
US officials should take the time to read Patten's book and learn from his Hong Kong experience. The US should neither force Taiwan to the negotiation table nor subject it to humiliation before China removes all of its pre-conditions and begins to interact rationally with Taiwan and the rest of the world. US officials should also be careful about the content and timing of their remarks lest they become Beijing's accomplices.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not
RSS